1. SUMMARY The has completed a study of all detention facilities in the County of Orange. This summary provides a concise overview of the findings derived from that study. Each finding emerged from processes such as interviews, reviews of records and documents, minutes of meetings, and visitations and observations. Findings from this study include the following: During the Grand Jury inspections only three of the facilities were at or near capacity, which is consistent with the 2008-2009 Grand Jury report. At the Garden Grove temporary holding facility an extreme amount of gang and tagging-type graffiti was found etched into the east jail cell floor. When Grand Jury members questioned the cell s appearance, they were told that due to the costs involved in replacing or repairing the epoxy surface, there is no plan to remove the graffiti. After an inmate suicide, the Grand Jury revisited Santa Ana City Jail. Upon touring the inmate housing area, the Grand Jury observed that in the cells and in the dayroom area not all furniture was secured to the floor, creating a potentially unsafe environment for inmates and jail personnel. The complete list of findings is in Section 5 of this report. In light of these findings, the Grand Jury has developed a number of recommendations (see Section 6) that it believes will enhance the efficiency/ efficacy of the involved agency/department(s). 2. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION California Penal Code section 919(b) requires the Grand Jury to inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county. Areas of inspection were guided by Title 15 of the California Administrative Code which governs housing conditions and treatment for incarcerated adults and juveniles. Table 1. Types of Detention Facilities CH Court Holding Facility: A local detention facility where detainees are held for court appearance for up to 12 hours. TH Temporary Holding Facility: A local detention facility constructed after January 1, 1978, in compliance with Corrections Standards Authority regulations and used for the confinement of persons for 24 hours or less pending release, transfer to another facility, or appearance in court. JF Juvenile Facility: A local detention housing facility for sentenced and non-sentenced juveniles. The Juvenile Hall and Theo Lacy Juvenile Annex house inmates who are sentenced to a commitment and those awaiting sentencing. The Juvenile Camps such as Joplin, the Youth Guidance Center, and the Youth Leadership Academy house juveniles who have been sentenced. 1 Type I Facility: A local detention facility where persons are held for not more than 96 hours (excluding holidays) after booking. Such a Type I facility may also detain persons on court order either for their own safekeeping or persons sentenced to a city jail as inmate workers, and may house inmate workers sentenced to the county jail provided such placement in the facility is made on a voluntary basis on the part of the inmate. An inmate worker is defined as a person assigned to perform designated tasks outside of his/her cell or dormitory, pursuant to the written policy of the facility, for a minimum of four hours each day on a five day scheduled work week. 2 Type II Facility: A local detention facility used for detention of persons pending arraignment, during trial, and upon a sentence of commitment. Page 1
3 Type III Facility: A local detention facility used only for the detention of convicted and sentenced persons. 4 Type IV Facility: A local detention facility or portion thereof designated for the housing of inmates eligible under Penal Code Section 1208 for work/education furlough and/or other programs involving inmate access into the community. Source: California Administrative Code Title 15 3. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The 2009-2010 Grand Jury fulfilled its Penal Code-mandated responsibility by conducting inspections of the Central Men s Jail, the Intake/Release Center, the Theo Lacy and James A. Musick facilities, as well as the holding cells in North, Central, West, Lamoreaux and Harbor courthouses. Site inspections were also made of the following juvenile camps and detention centers: Joplin Youth Center, Juvenile Hall, Youth Guidance Center, and Youth Leadership Academy. Additionally, the following City Police Departments were inspected: Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin, and Westminster. Since all inspections must be conducted by at least two jurors, three teams of two jurors each were assigned facilities to inspect. The inspection form (Appendix 1) includes reports on the medical and mental health services provided in the facilities, staffing, emergency procedures, use of force and segregation of inmates. Altogether, 34 facilities were inspected. Information from the inspection forms was used to complete the Detention Facilities Inspection Tables which are included. (Appendix 2) In investigating detention facilities, the Grand Jury met with representatives of the Orange County Sheriff s Department, City Police Departments, and Orange County Probation Department. 4. BACKGROUND Although statewide there are many different types of jail facilities, jails within Orange County are typically Court Holding Facilities, Temporary Holding Facilities, Juvenile Facilities, Type I, or Type II Facilities. There are no Type III or Type IV facilities in Orange County. Court Holding Facilities: Central Justice Center (capacity 360; on date of visit 165) Harbor Justice Center (capacity 139; on date of visit 83) Lamoreaux Justice Center (capacity 68; on date of visit 12) North Justice Center (capacity 166; on date of visit 123) West Justice Center (capacity 120; on date of visit 60) Temporary Holding Facilities: Brea (capacity 6; on date of visit 0) Cypress (capacity 6; on date of visit 3) Fountain Valley (capacity 7; on date of visit 0) Garden Grove (capacity 13; on date of visit 0) Irvine (capacity 43; on date of visit 3) Laguna Beach (capacity 12; on date of visit 2) Los Alamitos (capacity 10; on date of visit 0) La Palma (capacity 2; on date of visit 0) Orange (capacity 12; on date of visit 0) Placentia (capacity 10; on date of visit 1) Tustin (capacity 5; on date of visit 0) Westminster (capacity 15; on date of visit 0) Juvenile Facilities: Joplin Detention Camp (capacity 64; on date of visit 58) Juvenile Hall (capacity 434; on date of visit 314) Page 2
Theo Lacy Juvenile Annex (capacity 56; on date of visit 56) Youth Leadership Academy (capacity 120; on date of visit 105) Youth Guidance Center (capacity 125; on date of visit 124) Type I Facilities: Anaheim City Jail (capacity 130; on date of visit 25) Buena Park City Jail (capacity 12; on date of visit 5) Costa Mesa City Jail (capacity 32; on date of visit 2) Fullerton City Jail (capacity 16; on date of visit 1) Huntington Beach City Jail (capacity 82; on date of visit 1) La Habra City Jail (capacity 22; on date of visit 4) Newport Beach City Jail (capacity 27; on date of visit 4) Seal Beach City Jail (capacity 30; on date of visit 15) Type II Facilities: Santa Ana City Jail (capacity 480; on date of visit 476) Intake Release Center (capacity 888; on date of visit 731) Central Men s Jail (capacity 1,350; on date of visit 948) James A. Musick Facility (capacity 1250; on date of visit 792) Theo Lacy Branch Jail (capacity 3000; on date of visit 2848) Site visits were conducted at all of the Orange County detention facilities listed above. A second visit was made to the Santa Ana City Jail after the suicide of an inmate in September 2009. An inmate placed a plastic chair from his cell next to the rail Part of the Theo Lacy Facility in Orange, CA ing outside his cell and jumped on it to the top of the railing, from which he plunged to the floor below. The correctional supervisor on duty showed the Grand Jury where the cell was located on the second floor of the housing unit. The Grand Jury observed the newly replaced carpet on the first floor where the inmate fell, resulting in his death. The death occurred around 3 p.m. There are no plans to add additional barriers to the top of the current rail because of aesthetics, a correctional supervisor told the Grand Jury. During the inspections the Grand Jury became aware that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an audit of the Theo Lacy facility. Repeated attempts to contact the D.O.J. were unsuccessful. A dormitory at the James A. Musick facility in Irvine, CA Page
In July 2009, several inmates at the Central Men s Jail were quarantined after an outbreak of H1N1 flu. All facilities were found to be in compliance with state law at the time of inspection. The jails, camps and detention facilities appeared to be well-managed, notwithstanding the large number of detainees and the movement and processing of hundreds of individuals between the courts, detention facilities, and jails each day. The Sheriff s Department and City Police Department personnel were very helpful and informative, given their large workload and diverse responsibilities. 4.1 Orange County Sheriff Department Jail Budget According to the OCSD, the total Fiscal Year 2009-2010 OCSD jail budget is $166,803,039, in contrast to $182,757,471 for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. In July 2009, the Orange County Sheriff announced the unprecedented layoff of 42% of the command staff, as well as other employees, as part of the effort to meet this year s $50 million budget shortfall, including the elimination of two Assistant Sheriffs and five Captains, leaving one Captain in charge of both Theo Lacy and James A. Musick facilities, and one Captain in charge of both the Central Jail Complex and Court Services. Additionally, the position of Sheriff s Correctional Services Assistant was created as a more efficient method of addressing budget cutbacks. Next year s shortfall is expected to be near $70 million. The sheriff s budget is funded by Proposition 172 (half-cent sales tax increase in 1993), County of Orange general funds, charges for services to contract cities, and other sources. In March 2009, the north compound of the James A. Musick Jail closed, followed in July by the closing of the Central Women s Jail and Los Pinos Juvenile detention facilities. Inmates were transferred to other county detention facilities. After refurbishing, the Central Women s Jail will house female inmates. Under a proposed contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement federal detainees may be housed at Theo Lacy and Musick. Page Currently, overall inmate population is less than it was a year ago and there are beds available for inmate space. However, the State of California s expected inmate early release program may eventually increase the demand for beds at the local level. In October 2009, the first video arraignment facility was opened in the Central Jail Complex to reduce the movement of inmates between the jail and Central Justice Center. 4.2 Commendation The Grand Jury commends and thanks the members of the Orange County Sheriff s Department, City Police Departments, and Orange County Probation Department who cooperated with the Grand Jury during its inspections. 5. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of detention facilities in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at four principal findings, as follows. F.1 Capacity: During the Grand Jury inspections only three of the county facilities were at or near capacity, which is consistent with the 2008-2009 Grand Jury report. F.2 Graffiti: At the Garden Grove temporary holding facility an extreme amount of gang and tagging-type graffiti was found etched into the east jail cell floor. Grand Jury members were told that due to the costs involved in replacing or repairing the epoxy surface, there is no plan to remove the graffiti. F.3 Safety: The furniture in the cells and dayroom in the Santa Ana city jail is not secured to the floor, creating a potentially unsafe environment for inmates and jail personnel.
F.4 Compliance: All facilities were found to be in compliance with state law and regulations at the time of inspection. Response to Finding F.1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Response to Finding F.2 is requested from the Police Chief of the Garden Grove Police Department. Response to Finding F.3 is requested from Santa Ana City Jail Administrator. Response to Finding F.4: No response is required or expected to this Finding. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Detention Facilities in Orange County, the 2009-2010 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations: R.1 Capacity: The Orange County Sheriff s Department should continue its inmate population management program so as to avoid overcrowding. (See Finding 1) R.2 Graffiti: Graffiti should be removed from the east jail cell of the Garden Grove temporary holding facility and any graffiti appearing in the future should be removed immediately. (See Finding 2) R.3 Safety: The Santa Ana city jail is to conform to the practices of all other Orange County detention centers and firmly secure all furniture in the facility that is accessible to inmates. (See Finding 3) Response to Recommendation R.1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Response to Recommendation R.2 is requested from Garden Grove Police Department. Response to Recommendation R.3 is requested from Santa Ana City Jail Administrator. 7. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: 933.05 (a) For purposes of Subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. Page
APPENDIX (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. Appendix 1: Detention Facilities Inspection Form Appendix 2: Detention Facilities Inspection Tables Page
Page
Page
Page
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13